Take 2 on Spitzer, Stringer

Scott Stringer and Eliot Spitzer are statistically tied in a new poll.

Round two of the knockout fight named Stringer vs. Spitzer takes place Monday night on NY1 and WNYC radio. Let's hope there are more substantive answers to two crucial questions: the ability of the city to finance pension benefits and how either candidate would use the office to drive corporate American crazy.

No one should have any illusions about a discussion of the issues following Friday's caustic debate between Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and former Gov. Eliot Spitzer. The political realities dominated the first debate and may do so again tonight. Mr. Stringer must attack Mr. Spitzer to dent his popularity and prove that he is his rival's equal in smarts and knowledge. Mr. Spitzer is out to show Mr. Stringer is a lackluster career politician who can't hold his own. (Edge to Mr. Spitzer on Friday).

But Monday night's moderators—NY1's Errol Louis and WNYC's Brian Lehrer—are highly knowledgeable on the issues. (Disclosures: I am an occasional guest of both; Errol is a colleague of mine at the CUNY journalism school, and I will be doing post-debate analysis on NY1 along with veteran reporter Wayne Barrett and The New York Times editorial board writer Eleanor Randolph.)

Most pressing is to pin down the two candidates on the city's pension plan—the key job of the comptroller, anyway. Friday both seemed to rule out benefit cuts and Mr. Spitzer (correctly) said New York is not Detroit. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. Here are the few key points.

Poor performance. The city's pension funds investment performance consistently trails the state's by one or two percentage points, an enormous sum that requires billions in additional taxes over time to fill the gap. Current Comptroller John Liu says a major cause is the cumbersome structure of city pensions and proposed to reform it—saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The unions blocked it. Mr. Stringer seemed to support the Liu plan Friday. Mr. Spitzer was never asked.

Those despised hedge funds and private-equity shops. One reason the state does better than the city is that it aggressively invests in hedge funds, private equity firms and real estate, about one-fifth of the portfolio. These are just the kind of nefarious Wall Street firms Mr. Spitzer castigated Friday. Is he opposed to such investments? Is Mr. Stringer? If so, will they concede the state will always have higher returns?

Social investing. Both candidates, and Mr. Spitzer in particular, want to use the pension fund to boost the city's economy. Well, how much exactly is prudent to divert to local investments and won't the city have to accept a lower rate of return? (No matter what they say, the answer to the latter question is yes.)

Holding corporate America accountable. This idea is at the center of the Spitzer mantra and Mr. Stringer seems to endorse it as well (just without the Spitzer baggage). The specifics remain vague. Would they bring shareholder resolutions to force a reduction in pay on Wall Street—say, at Goldman Sachs? Would they seek a shareholder vote demanding Walmart raise its hourly workers' pay? What is and is not on their agenda?

There are so many more important questions the candidates have sidestepped. But these would be a start.

Crain’s New York Business is the trusted voice of the New York business community—connecting businesses across the five boroughs by providing analysis and opinion on how to navigate New York’s complex business and political landscape.